The original cylinder isn't used because as high as it was on cool factor the pyramid enclosure simply sounds better. It's higher mass, internal shape and larger base with the plinth design create a more solid bass response and truer tone in the midrange.

Lon I finally got the turntable playing, well it's a new turntable and cartridge but I can finally play a record again. All my old gear has sold or is selling on ebay to defray some of this cost, the turntable and cartridge was around $3K and I think I got a good deal on it. Everything sounds great and my speakers aren't as efficient as the Radials will be. The Twins sound good now that I added a 12" Velodyne sub I think I could tolerate that but I still want the Radials. I'm hoping for no more than another 3 weeks. This is kind of exciting knowing these will be one of the first pair out the door.

The original cylinder isn't used because as high as it was on cool factor the pyramid enclosure simply sounds better. It's higher mass, internal shape and larger base with the plinth design create a more solid bass response and truer tone in the midrange.

Steve

I can tell you first hand that this statement correctly, and honestly, sums up the actual worth revealed from these designs. I was at the shop during the R&D stage of these speakers, so I had first hand experience evaluating them through the final phase as shown in present form. It is for this very reason that we have found the progressively changing slopes within the pyramid concept to be superior in overall response. The tubes were very light and thin walled by comparison. Most people understand by now that as Steve clearly pointed out, MASS IS CRITICAL within the speakers foundation. Of equal importance is that of dissimilar internal surfaces for optimal modal control.

In finding the exact internal volume, height, and correct balance of added structural mass, it became quite clear as to the changes within the sound, as these parameters were zoned in to the ideal range.

Quote:

...passively loaded plinth floating below the cabinet...

priceless.

Yes, ABSOLUTELY!!!

This has proven to be the single most substantial modification for improving the low-end response of not only these speakers, but others as well, converted with this concept. This transition alone transcends from the ordinary in a two-fold perspective. Not only does the lower frequency spectrum extend deeper, most importantly; it extends accurately within a very smooth response. The level of improvement is quite noticeable throughout the upper midrange as well.

Many people are surprised to find that proper bass control has a great deal to do with how the mid range itself sounds in general. Strong clean bass noted by sharp definition is the result here, with a midrange presence that portrays an equally stunning degree of improvement.

I remember the day that the driver mounting plate concept evolved! Bob and I spent a good deal of time discussing the best possible ways to make that transition. Indeed it does work very well. Things like this appear to be simple, but in fact can be the most troublesome in design to meet the objective. The end result had to conform to several factors in which to be acceptable. Not only did it need to present a solid foundation with clean lines; it also had to support the driver installation with minimal diffraction points. The platform had to provide integration of the mounting support for the high frequency driver arch, in a pleasing aesthetic manner. This plate had to allow the removable cover a proper platform for which to sit securely, with a visual conformity to the pyramid boundary itself. Finally, it had to be removable with minimal effort for future servicing, while at the same time providing a reusable, positive seal. The end result proves to meet those objectives very well.

All in all, the formation of this design represents the culmination of ideal improvement made possible by the current design concept, which by far, surpasses the previous designs by quite a margin. The largest gain, that which will be noted with great prominence, is within the significant spread of the frequency spectrum. These are for the first time in the evolution of radial design, proven deserving of a position among the stable of full-range, high quality speaker designs. As I dislike comparing quality factored by price as a determination of worth, this remains as the basis for which most people seem to regard the overall performance of the product. So, if I had to relate quality in this manner, then this would be my best way to sum it up for those that must equate quality to price.

Right off, I would say that if this basis were the only determining factor for which price should be set, then there has been a major mistake here concerning the price! Since I very much doubt that any speaker under $2000.00 on the market today could even come close to the sound quality of this advanced radial design, let alone surpass its standard, then maybe we should reevaluate the price for which to balance things out subjectively. With that being the case, these models should be priced accordingly at double the price offered. I think that it is fair to say that these models offer the best overall value when all things are considered by a long shot. These speakers undoubtedly offer the best degree of overall compatibility factors that one could warrant.

Reading the text. . . my RL2s are now "obsolete"! I'm going to try to keep this from them for as long as possible!

Next year will also see retail versions of radials! Going to be exciting!

I can tell you from my past experience starting with the original RL-1 introduction that this current design is a major leap forward in build quality and performance. The thing that always stood out in my mind concerning the overall sound quality of the cylinder design concept was that of the mid-range as its greatest positive trait. At the same time, the weakest aspect of the original design was the desire for much improved bass response. We all knew that lower frequency extension was not a strong point for those speakers but it was quite respectable in it’s own right.

What was learned from all of this? Maintain that which worked well and redesign that which is longing for modification. That is what you have here in a much better design package of robust proportion! Think about it. You are getting a new speaker design, far superior to its predecessor at a price point that has practically unchanged! How’s that for unparalleled value? Most importantly, it is made in the USA.

I ordered a pair in late November 2008, and have had extensive conversations with both Ziggy and Eddie Vaughn about matching the speakers with my system and room. Based on my listening style and preferences, I am excited, and believe I will have a lasting synergy! Hopefully soon!

Won't be long and the waiting will be over and several of us will have ERRs in the living room!

Life is good!

:)

Can't wait to hear impressions.

Well I believe that I can offer the earliest of impressions of these speakers auditioned within an acoustically acceptable room, powered by Decware components and non-Decware components. I can also base my perception of these in respect to past experience with the very first radial models ever produced. Things have come a long way here across the board, as not only the look and build reveals, but also equal by proportion to the broadening of sound improvement as well.

What always struck me about the early radial designs was the effortless sound dispersion that maintained an impervious nature for which to counter bad room acoustics.

Unfortunately, the very foundation which made these speakers sound so special was also that which became its worst detriment. That being the limitations of the cylinder itself. The sound did not relate to the coloration known to typical box speakers, this of which the cylindrical shape was directly responsible. The drawback was limitation in the low frequency response.

The continued modification of the passive-loaded base design of the RL-2’s and beyond offered a tremendous degree of improvement over the original design. This was however taken to the maximum potential for which the cylinder could offer. This concept deserved better. This meant that a total revamp in design was necessary to progress beyond these boundaries.

What really evolved here was the hybrid formation of the best factors concerning the cylinder radial design and that of the much costlier RL-3 design. The best of both concepts merged as one to create a better sounding speaker then either of the predecessors for which these design factors was derived. That which evolved into the current model.

I always preferred the sound and overall attributes that the larger radial driver revealed in the cylinder design. The thing that became immediate to me when I first heard future models built with the smaller diameter radial drivers, was the absence of what made the original drivers sound so special. At the same time, the balance went the other direction with improvement in the lower end, this directly related to the pyramid design. Keep in mind that the older RL-3’s utilized an open passive radiator approach, which depended upon the distance of the floor surface, as well as the composition of the floor for which determined the response. While the improvement seemed significant over the cylinder approach concerning bass issues, I never felt the magic that seemed so apparent in the original radial model concept. There always seems to be a compromise when alterations are made. In this case, I would have opted to maintain the mid-range qualities of the larger driver in the cylinder design over the bass improvement obtained by the newer RL-3 models. The RL-3 models had a completely different nature to them which to me, just seemed to follow all the other standard cabinet designs as far as sound quality was concerned. This all leads to the premise that “The sum of the parts are greater than that of the whole” and it is clearly proven within the following analysis.

So, what was learned from all of this? That neither design had fully obtained a maximum level of quality possible in their limited form. Taken to maximum potential, the sum of the whole now balances out the sum of the parts.

Prior to the new radial designs, (EER’s) as they are now tagged, as revealed at last years Decfest, I was asked to sit down for a listening session with my eyes closed so that I would have no idea as to what was being played in the room. Up to this point, I evaluated the prototypes as they were undergoing different design approaches. One of these approaches involved the use of a full range modified Fostex driver in conjunction with the larger Radial driver as used in the original designs. I liked the sound of that combination very much with a sense that it would have found wide acceptance among most listeners.

We generally listened to the system changes with the exact same source, music selection, and volume to keep things in perspective. Any changes are therefore revealed in a controlled manner that is more easily confirmed.

Well, being that the EER’s were the focus of the previous week with the most concentration applied toward their final form, I suspected that some combination of the radial speaker would be used in this blind test. That was the whole idea. My memory was to serve as the basis for analysis without any visual confirmation to lesson the impact of the final conclusion.

Upon the initial start of the evaluation, I immediately knew that something special had once again abounded my senses for which had been silenced for a very long time. As memory would serve, the first thing that came to mind was the effortless sense of ambience within the room, resembling that of the larger radial drivers used in the early cylindrical designs. There was uniqueness to this sound that separates itself from any other speaker by comparison. At the same time, as the element of surprise revealed, for the first time I was not only re-experiencing the sound quality that always made the larger radial driver sound so special, but now in perfect unity with a seamless progression deep into the lower registers with a sense of speed that was sorely missed in previous designs.

When I first revealed the presence of what I had listened to, it did not surprise me that the Radials were part of the system. What did surprise me was the driver arrangement. An almost exact replica of the original layout concerning the driver array was now integrated into a much superior pyramid foundation. For the first time, the best of old met the best of new and the answer we had desired finally revealed itself in form for which soon came to be the ERR model.

The new approach to using a tunable variable port base assembly for the passive loading proved to be the ultimate advancement. It proved so worthy that we wasted no time modifying older designs with this concept, all with superior levels of gain. This quickly became the standard in design with benefits that were previously unobtainable.

To go back and listen to any cabinet without this modification will noticeably sound bloated and constricted by comparison. The modification allows for far more precise detail to be heard with a sense of deeper cognition to information, which now conveys important relevance to its substance. There is a strong sense of rhythmic pace, snap, and emotional connection that seemed out of sync prior to the modification.

To sum up: what is available here is the answer to what so many requested the ideal speaker to sound like. The one thing that most radial owners wanted was for improvement in bass response without losing any of the special qualities in the mid-range which made these speakers so alluring from the start. This latest radial design represents full circle evolution to what the concept should have been in the initial concept. Time has definitely made a marked improvement here as most previous owners of past designs will quickly agree. I can definitely proclaim that the magic is back and it just got better!

Yes, I'll have a pair. I actually ordered a pair of the new Retail models as well. I'll be really having fun!

I can tell you in advance Lon that your assumption is correct on both accounts!

Both speakers are unique in sound character. Of course the retail version dispenses a price tag several times over the EER model. I can tell you first hand that the creation of the Retail versions is far more complicated and involved, therefore it is understandable why they cost so much more. These are like the modified works of art that Chip Foose creates from tired old cars, turning them into the most intriguing designs ever displayed.

My set is finished in metallic automotive paint, which has a chameleon effect to it as light varies upon its finish. These speakers look like they have been fabricated from sheetmetal. The secret lies within the tedious preparation stage and the choice of quality materials used in the process.

These make for some serious eye candy as most that have seen them agree.

What these speakers do for the home theatre experience is astonishing beyond belief! They don't fair too bad for two-channel audio either.

PS: I predict that you will be overwhelmed with joy in the near future! It may be too much to handle taking in what both of these sets have to offer at the same time. I hope that both models exceed your expectations, bringing new levels of quality to your listening experience. I have no doubt at all concerning the outcome.

Thanks Paul. I'm really looking forward to the experiences. I'm retired for the moment and will have the time to absorb these speakers before I move on to probably finding a new home with a lovely loving partner and then another job. . . . There is much listening pleasure ahead of me!

I know how much work and brain-storming Bob and Steve have done on these and trust the results to be phenomenal. These two gentlemen of sound really know their stuff and are really dedicated to the realization of spectacular playback.

Sounds like everything is back in order for you with a new take on life. Glad to hear that all is going well! I do know that you are in for some very interesting listening sessions, based upon what I've experienced with the new speaker models.

Low frequency reproduction is going to be something very much in favor here as will soon be experienced.

Anyway, to reply regarding the thought "can it get any better than this?", I can only think to myself just how clearly this will be answered once these speakers have been experienced on your behalf.

All that remains is your clarification on this when the time comes to evaluate the new designs. I for one am looking forward to your analysis and overall impressions.

You are not really letting anything go with the older models. In essence, you are retaining those special qualities with significant enhancement. The package is complete, leaving nothing to be desired in present form.

As a teaser, here are some images of the new retail RADIAL I.T. models for which you too will soon own. This is my set, finished in metallic automotive paint.

Notice how the color depth changes from light to dark depending on the rate of light. I shot these photos within the span of one hour, during the latter part of the afternoon as the sun was setting. Nothing was changed except for the degree of natural sunlight as the sunset took place.

This final design is the culmination of effort between Bob and myself. As impressive as the external lines are, what you can't see on the inside, and what this means to the performance of these models, is truly the most impressive part of this design. There is a vast degree of complexity instilled within these designs, clearly represented by the musical embodiment for which they produce.

For now, here is a brief view of the upcoming model soon to be on display within local audio shops.

have not posted on site for a long time. Take a look at occassionaly to see whats up and well Bob just want to say the new retail speaker looks very cool. I of course am curious as a still happy rl-3 owner what you have learned in this new design that looks anyway to be using the same front drivers the brand names of which I won't mention here. True? Pictures don't show us the make up of the top firing driver. Is it now traditionaly mounted as in not inverted? Is there then a cone above dispearsing the top mount driver 360? or is it just left to radiate upwards on it's own?

Real question for me is what have you learned over the years to help us owners of rl3's. Assuming still first oder crossover with cap and resistor for tweeter only now hiding inside. Would you be willing to give what with your years of experience in development what you have settled on for the cap brand and value of cap? Anyone else want to weigh in on this subject?

I know I am slightly off topic but the new speaker makes me want to ask the question.

The "I.T's" front driver is by the same manufacturer but a different version that the RL-3's used. The crossover is a 2nd order 12 dB on both the Radial and the tweeter, this clarified things greatly. The Radial driver was made more efficient, and it is in fact an inverted cone like the 3 was. The top plates are the grill, thanks to Steve Deckert. The bases are another one of Steve ideas, his original drawing for the ERR's had this plinth base, we took it a step farther and implemented it on both the ERR's, the "I.T" 's The MG944's and the Kadenz speaker

What makes the "I.T" so different is whats on the inside, which has to be done after everything else is finished, which takes a good bit of time do to the fact that, well the speakers are finished, and we have to be careful not to get anything on the finish.

The cap we now use, and I like a lot, is Clarity Cap from Madisound. Paul,(RFZ quest) had a early pair of the retail version on the Decware site for sale, we installed the new bases and the 12dB crossover and found even they had a significant improvement.

You know, it's funny how good things come from not so good events....if it hadn't been for the fire in Phoenix which is why we lost our inventory of the RL-1.5 tubes, the ERR's would probably never have been built. The ERR's are the quintessential Radial speaker which is why we did away with the RL-3's, they are that good.

And the ERR's pyramid base looks like a good concept, with its absence of parallel planes hence lowering the chance of producing sound nodes inside.

However, talking about aesthetic design, would it be possible to ask for the cylindrical grill to be placed on top of the pyramidal base? -It is my take- that it would help the ERRs blend more easily with most rooms (or to better blend with some at least).

Well I spent most of the day at Bob's today and got my first listen to both the retail "IT" version and the ERR's. All I can say is Lon is going to be one very happy camper when these things come to him. The new ERR is a DEFINITE improvement over the 1.5's.

These were so good, in fact, that my wife has given me the go ahead to finish a project at home and order a pair for our house! (that's big folks)

When I heard the RL1.5's and the RL3's I would never have thought they were lacking in any area, but after hearing the new ERR's, I would now say that they do everything the earlier versions did plus some. I believe that I would say they sound "stronger" than the earlier versions. More solid and heavier while maintaining or possibly improving on speed and clarity. Even at pretty high volumes they were very very good all the way through. Midrange is where magic is made and they deliver that without ever being too shouty or in your face at all. I like the fact that they produce ample low end, crystal high end and don't leave any feeling of missing sounds. Every time I go to Bob's house I hear something that sets a benchmark for "the best I have heard". Today I heard two of those and both were radial designs. The retail version is different in it's own way and I won't get too far into that because we didn't listen to them a lot. I did like them very much and would love to own a pair of all the speakers Bob builds, but the pocket book draws a line somewhere lol.

I want to thank Bob for having us today. He is always gracious and accomodating and doesn't mind talking shop all day even in the absence of food. I will have to repay him in kind when he comes down my way. So far we are planning on putting him up in a REALLY nice hotel and feeding him well. He deserves much more for putting up with me :)

I can't wait to hear more reviews on these once they start hitting homes. I loved what I heard enough to put up some cash, that's for sure.

Bob was using a decware pre-amp and an old Marantz receiver when we first got there. We listened to the ERR's on this for a bit and then switched to the retails for a comparison. After a bit he switched it over to a Decware Tori (not sure which version, but I know it has been modded) with no pre. The retails liked the tube amp much more than the SS. I don't think the ERR's were affected as much.

It is a very difficult thing to describe the differences in the two speakers though. The obvious difference is the front firing driver on the retail. I immediately wanted to get just a little further away from them and once I did the magic was right there. We were sitting extremely near field (3 or 4 ft I think) and they still sounded great. I believe the ERR's to be better for my room simply because I have two sets of seats. One is only 3 or so feet from the speakers and they will be much further apart than Bob's room. This could be a big factor with the retails. Not nearly as big as with other designs granted, but you will likely want to play with position and placement with the retail version whereas the ERR probably won't care if it is sittin on the arm of your chair. Bob was able to point out a few differences in how the retail version handled certain tracks of music that I likely would not have noticed, but the main difference I noticed was their character and presentation. While they have the magic that the radial design delivers, they also carried a bit of the conventional speaker sound.

My impression would be that the ERR's are a bit more laid back sounding than the Retail version. I would never say one was better than the other without using the room as a reference. I would also not pull a winner out without knowing the person's preferences in music. Lon I can tell you this, you will not be dissapointed in either set of speakers. I am willing to bet you will have a favorite, but that you will listen to one for a while and then switch to the others and then back and forth. I was continually wanting to swap them out and compare songs, but it is not so easy to move a speaker out of the way and plug in the next one repeatedly lol. As it is, I really liked both.

Maybe Bob can describe the differences in better terms when he has time. They both are excellent speakers and both are very beautiful.

My only fear continues to be that I may not have enough power using the Taboo. 6 watts is at the bottom range according to the specs and I do like to listen to music at levels above a whisper. Guess I will find out in about a week or so.

Do they look sexy in black Bob? I have a neighbor who does some amazing inlay work who might inlay a bird or dove on the front of my ERRs. She did a neck inlay on a friend of mine's guitar that was awesome.

Hey Stone Deaf,I was lucky enough to be there and see the black paint. They do look sexy. It's an interesting contrast to the wood grain models. I don't know how much work was left to be done to them, but I know the new models have construction work to be done even after the finish work is applied.

I wouldn't be slightly worried about the power. The Tori amp was barely cracked open running the ERR's and they were well into the upper limits of listening. (90+ db easily) If you wanted to crank them louder the tori probably had 2/3 of it's juice left. My bet is that your amp will drive them plenty.

Richard, don't fret. I'v used Radials with Selects, 2 watts per channel, and they could get too loud. I use my RL2s with Decware SE34 Monoblocks rated at six watts and never get to turn them anywhere near as loud as they could go.

I was very happy to be present (thru the net) when Steve introduced his investigations with the radials quite some years ago. From the begining, the idea of speakers being built more "attuned" to the wave shape they were proyecting struck me as a very good and unique one. It comes to mind the water drop making waves on a pond... The early driver designs as also RL1 and RL1.5 and RL3, always fitted very well on the place that the drop actually touches the water. The new ERRs also look like will not disturb the propagation of waves. its pyramid (but complexed) base shape, seems to just add to the design evolution without any detriment on the moevent of sound waves.

However just by seeing the "iT" pictures, it comes out as obvious that these boxes will get into the waves path. I agree that the colums do look stunning, possibly bearing an egyptian style... but what about baffle step? I do suspect that a considerable part of the Radials design success comes from low step obstruction and clean wave dispersion...

Have to admit that the ideas in this post have no real-experience basis since I haven't yet found the chance to own a Decware radial and part of it is because I've always longed (and still do) for a radial speaker rather focused on the lower/Mid frequencies to be part of a 3 way high output system, but so far hasn't happened...

Also I dont want to tarnish any development, but the "baffle step" question lingers on. Maybe too detailish maybe not

Thanks for the support therapy guys I'm still a bit new to this mini-watt idea. My idea of small watt amps in the past was MacIntosh MC40 monoblocks or Marantz 8b. I did own a pair of ASL Wave 8 monoblocks I wish I still had. Steve told me everything would work together I suppose I should trust him, he had almost an open check book to work with. I'm happy with everything so far and the radials will be the frosting on the cake. I gave that black finish a lot of thought before I talked with Bob. I'll try to post a pic when I get them set up in the room.

Went to see the Ohm speakers http://www.sitesandsounds.us/eze/eze5/items/ohm_lined-up-walsh-small.jpg and what can I say? The grids are all square, identical to the new squared ERR grill. Upon aesthetical comparison, the (RL's) cylinfrical grid wins by far regardless of the base shape and in my view reinforces the radial concept, but of course our difference here is entirely subjective and purely aesthetic. I would agree in that the radial's pyrami-ed base shape looks (and pbbly sounds) much better than any Ohm base shape.

And with the risk of going off-topic here, a few guidelines have helped me when judging spkrs enclosures baffle step wise: -Open air mid-high spkrs are sort of ideal, even better than infinity designs (a driver mounted on a big wall) mainly because additional to the baffle step where there are diffractions that add (and then not) to the original sound waves, the open design does not suffer from surface/size derived diffractions. -As on a river, different velocities of the water running near and far from its sides, interfere with each other, the actual box edge form is important and thus roundovers or curved angles have been sprouting on leading brands (B&W comes to mind) to reduce cabinet edge diffraction. -Spkrs boxes are better thin than fat, ideally not thicker than the width of the driver itself. If you want SPL it would be better to build taller rather than fatter boxes.

I assume the IT enclosure theoretically regulate Bass response (increase) so it would compensate BStep. Nevertheless in the broad perspective, I've always considered the radial driver design a good advance in the quest of better wave radiation. Radial loudspeakers particularly in the ERRs pyrami-ed cabinet look like a new point of design in this quest... Yes, the waves move vertically here, but this actually helps eliminate the floor as another source of wave interference. (This is why always thought of Steve's radial drivers as perfect for Low freqs... but this really is off-topic). Hope it helps.Nacho

BobZPardon my english, not being my native language. Often find myself trying to correct posts, guessing if it actually says what was intended... And also I apologize for bringing here a design talk, that might very well be very minor in perspective of all the technical aspects that a rather complex speaker like the IT -no doubt- has involved. This subject pbbly belongs to a different thread and I'll leave it as it is.

And all in all, the ERRs and the ITs seem to be very different speakers for different rooms, environments and ultimately different needs. Surely each one has different strengths, sharing the fact that both are efforts to bring out the radials to the audiences. I definitely second that.

On the ERRS round grills option, I see your point (@ the Ohm's discontinued products) and I agree that they dont look as good, only because in that case the cylinders are smaller in diameter than the base they stand and hence look sort of weak. Alternatively on the RLs, the cylindrical grill size always fit very well their base and looked proportionate size-wise. On the pyrami-ed base it appears that the same proportionality could be achieved.

/// On second thought, the shape of the ERR's grill could follow, mirror, or fractalize the complex angles the base actually has in its lower part and thus, reinforce the less-parallels concept, at the same time "rounding" the grill squared shape that to some of us might find "not so radial". Just an opinion.

Not a problem, I still have a problem with English, and it is my native language.

Talking about the design isn't a problem, I welcome good ideas, Robert (musgofasa) had a pretty good idea for the ERR's grills this weekend, with his idea, they would not require any sewing, but would be harder to get to gel with the rest of the cabinet (in my mind anyway) Either way I liked the look he came up with.

Paul P (RFZQuest) had come up with a whole new concept look for the IT project, which was a profoundly different look which I loved, and I can assure you that some day we will build a speaker like it or very close to it, as it was pretty awesome. I've just got to figure out how to build it, or just take the time to do so, but time seems to be in short supply these days.

The final look of the top of the IT's came from Steve Deckert, unfortunately for Steve, most of the idea he had come up with was for the ERR's, but there was just no better place for the tweeter than were it is now located, when mounted in its current position, like the RL-1.5s, the transition form Radial driver to the tweeter is seamless. Steve also had had some new tweeter brackets made for the new ERR's, which I believe the extra mass the bracket possess has a good effect on the focus of the top end. The ERR's should also arrive with the tweeters with the exact same angle and location as they were, when they leave my shop, which in the past we have had tweeters actually go through the Radial driver itself, something no one wants to see when they open they're new speakers and can't listen to them.

I'm proud to say, we have not had a damaged speaker shipped out from here in almost three years. Here is Steve's idea on how to be sure you package something so it won't be damaged in shipment......"Box the speaker like you think it should be boxed, get a ladder, climb up on your roof and throw the box down on your concrete driveway, if you can do that, and there is no damage, it should be good enough to make it to the destination"!!!! I've never done this by the way, in fear of me falling off the roof and suffering bodily damage.

I had that idea on the ride home from Bob's house, but as soon as I had it, I had the thought that it would not only be impossible to make fit, but that the only way it would look useable would be on a speaker with a painted finish. With the woodgrain, I cannot see any way to make that grille look anything less than hideous.

Speaking of shipping, I work for UPS and have used another of Steve's addages when talking to my customers. I remember him saying he boxed his stuff so it could be shot out of a cannon into a brick wall and if it survived that, it would survive transit. After seeing the trouble Bob goes to in packaging his stuff, I have no doubts it would not only survive the fall from the roof, but likely make a large hole in the driveway without suffering even a scratch. The hole it would make in the brick wall could be used for advertising though, lol

I sent them out twice to get finished, the first time they came back the finish was orange peeled pretty bad...the second time they came back they had specs of trash in the finish but no orange peel...so I took it upon myself to sand them down, and respray them myself....they turned out pretty good.